PDA

View Full Version : Sportsmen, Hunters and the RKBA. Weak Links


nicki
12-28-2008, 6:37 AM
Obama/Biden will attack us by saying they support our right to keep and bear sporting guns, but not weapons of war(EBR's).

They will claim that Heller supports banning the carrying of concealed weapons.

He will probably say that people have a right to own a handgun, but not a highly concealable one.

My concern is that he could say that with the second amendment, sporting guns are protected and use that to seperate sportsmen from people like us.

So my question to all of you is the following.

How do we get the sportsmen to view gun ownership as more than just a hobby?

How do we get them to wake up and realize that the issue isn't just guns, it is all of our rights.

The reality is many gun owners voted for Obama and I see Obama and Biden having a press release showing the pair of them going duck hunting before they take aim at our EBR's and handguns.

Our opponents wouldn't have created Americans for Gun safety unless they thought they could split off alot of sportsmen from us.

In closing, we need to keep an eye and make sure that all gun owners realize that without our guns, all of our other rights become government revocable privileges.

The issue is more than just guns guys, it is the whole bill of rights, it is the whole value system of government operating under the consent of the governed.

Nicki

tankerman
12-28-2008, 7:48 AM
What are you saying?

I hunt, so do alot other members CGN and outside of California probably most (or close to most) gunowners are hunters. Would like to find out what percentage of NRA members are hunters, bet it's more than non-hunters.

The same BS you are claiming the 'sportsmen' spew is the same crap you hear from Paper Puncher/Tacaticool crowd, hell their are plenty of members here that look down their nose at hunters, talking all kinds crap.

Perhaps you need to review the issues more completely.

bulgron
12-28-2008, 8:00 AM
I think there's something to what Nicki is saying, but I don't know in what numbers. I know that I've personally talked to a lot of California gun owners who don't see any problem with our state's gun laws, who like the AW ban, and who really don't want to see people walking around with a concealed weapon.

I don't know how to reach that demographic of gun owner. My suspicion is that there is no way to reach that person, as they only own guns for purely selfish reasons and aren't willing to extend freedoms to other people.

Dr Rockso
12-28-2008, 8:01 AM
Honestly I think the "divide and conquer" thing sort of worked in '94, but won't work again. Every hunter I know in the free states now owns an EBR, and why not? The AR is a great platform for all sorts of things, including hunting. I really think EBRs, and the AR in particular, are too mainstream (much more so than 15 years ago) to try to ban them federally. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the democrats aren't going to want to risk those newly minted blue states over another AWB.

RobG
12-28-2008, 8:26 AM
Blah, blah, blah. I see this sh&t all the time. You know what, I have hunted since I was a kid and the ones I see purporting divisions are all the "only gun owners" not hunters. Just like you are now assuming hunters do not care about RKBA issues. Just because one of my duck hunting partners does not own a concealable handgun, AK or AR variant does not mean they don't care about RKBA issues. The gov't used this as a wedge years ago to get the awb to pass.

RobG
12-28-2008, 8:32 AM
I don't know how to reach that demographic of gun owner.

Here I am. What do you want to know? Again, the assumptions are what divides. Maybe someone that hunts does not want to drop 1500 on a AR, but instead drops the $$ on a duck blind. So what. Does that make them less pro 2A?

HunterJim
12-28-2008, 8:36 AM
nicki,

There definitely *are* two "gunny" communities: hunters and shooters. The really big example of this was the Internet sh*t storm that enveloped Jim Zumbo after he posted on a blog that black rifles do not belong in the hunting woods. Since his sponsors were most interested in selling firearms to both groups, they canned him because of the outcry.

I belong to both groups, and don't have any problem at working for our interests. Right now I see Heller and its fallout to the states and local jurisdictions as the most important issue facing us.

Politicians always try to pander to groups of voters and parse their comments so they can spin the message to suit. In this case Obama is no different from Clinton or Dole or Bush. Actually it is easier having an enemy in the White House, because we know he is an enemy.

For me gun ownership is the difference between citizens and subjects.

jim

wutzu
12-28-2008, 9:02 AM
So what Nicki seems to be saying is:

To the extent that a divide exists between "Hunters" and "Paperpunchers", we should work to bring the groups closer together so we don't end up losing more rights? Makes sense to me.

Scotty
12-28-2008, 9:26 AM
We do have good people at the NSSF that is working towards uniting hunters and shooters, especially since the shooters community have grown and are outnumbering the hunters.

Here's a good podcast from Michael Bane at the NSSF Shooting Sports Summit. http://www.downrange.tv/radio/65.htm

SJgunguy24
12-28-2008, 10:21 AM
I think there's something to what Nicki is saying, but I don't know in what numbers. I know that I've personally talked to a lot of California gun owners who don't see any problem with our state's gun laws, who like the AW ban, and who really don't want to see people walking around with a concealed weapon.

I don't know how to reach that demographic of gun owner. My suspicion is that there is no way to reach that person, as they only own guns for purely selfish reasons and aren't willing to extend freedoms to other people.

I have also and that scares me.


So what Nicki seems to be saying is:

To the extent that a divide exists between "Hunters" and "Paperpunchers", we should work to bring the groups closer together so we don't end up losing more rights? Makes sense to me.

I agree with you.

Too many people are worried about "Me" and "My". This B.S. needs to stop! We are all in this fight together, all 50 states and every single American citizen. When someone says "that law doesn't affect ME because I don't NEED an AR" I want to slap the taste out of their mouth.

It all begins with baby steps, mag capacity restriction. "Who need 30 rounds"...........baby step.

"Who needs a semi auto shotgun"............baby step


"AK's are useless for hunting"............baby step


Next thing you know we might end up like England. Their government has started banning FAKE KNIVES. W.T.F.:eek:

There is a divide, and it needs to be shut. Baby steps are working to split gun owners as a whole. Now we need baby steps to come together.

sargenv
12-28-2008, 10:40 AM
I've been a part of the hunting and shooting communities for a long time. I've seen both sides of the same coin. I know several hunters who have no use for EBR's and they always ask what we need them for.. I know target shooters who have no use for hunters and ask why we need to kill critters.. In every case where I deal with both extremes.. I try to educate people on both sides hoping that they will see the light and try to unite them into the same cause as opposed to polarize people against each other.

I can remember a time when I thought the same way and wondered why anyone would need/want an AR/AK, or variant... now I wish I could gain access for one without any restrictions and I kick myself since at the time I could have bought a JP, Colt, Bushy, etc that now I need get an OLL and put on an upper and configure it so it's within the law but not the same as people who are not in this state and they need not worry about the laws.

Blaming each other is not the answer.. talking courteously to people outside of the know would be much better than being hostile to those and telling them to pound sand or mind their own business. I always try and offer a few rounds to people who might be interested but they don't know it yet.. ;)

bwiese
12-28-2008, 10:55 AM
There's unfortunately been, in the past, a big disconnect between the Field & Stream guys and the American Rifleman guys. The former are the people Obama tries to reach out to, with statements like "I'm not gonna take your hunting guns."

I belive, in the past, paper puncher/match gunnies have been far more supportive of hunters than the converse.

This disconnect may have been magnified in CA for awhile, but the War on Gun Owners in CA is so large that they may be realizing they're on the radar too.

A fair fraction of the hunter types have been politically disconnected, figure their 870s and Rem 700s aren't in danger and have even voiced disdain for handgun & black rifle ownership.

Hunters and the Thirty Caliber Idiots played a significant role during the runup to the passage of the Roberti-Roos 1989 AW ban, allowing themselves to be repeatedly used by the media as tools for antigunners: "I don't need one of those black rifles to shoot", "Nobody needs over 10 rounds", "223 is no good for anything", etc. Remember that Roberti-Roos passed by only one or two votes, and that if we'd had a more unified front we may well not have had to put up with it. The Garand/M1A folks really surprised me with their insularity: as long as their pet rifles were protected they didn't give a damn about anyone else, and crawled back in their holes. Once some M1A folks got popped for AW violations reality slapped them in the face.

And I think some hunters are now realizing that their 'deer rifle' is already a 'sniper rifle' in the antis eyes.

The NRA has been trying to visibly reach out to the hunting community and that may be helping. I know the dog-tethering issue supported by some gun org people really infuriated hunters and that was one reason the NRA really jumped on it - while not gun-related, it's 'gun community-related'.

The moment we question why a person wants to engage in some shooting sport or other legitimate firearms-oriented activity, we ourselves are not involved in is when we are not uniitzed.

cxr
12-28-2008, 12:55 PM
isnt that how they outlawed guns in England.. first they divided them..

took all the sport shooters guns away.... then went after the hunters guns???

DONT LET THEM DO THAT TO US!!!

dwtt
12-28-2008, 1:44 PM
There's nothing new about what the OP wrote. It's been going on since the 1980's but I wonder why they use the work sportsmen and only refer to hunters. IPSC and IDPA shooters are sportsmen, and they don't buy into the Obama B.S.

otteray
12-28-2008, 3:09 PM
Nicki's point is right on!
Look at The American Hunters and Shooters Association. Look at the founder.
http://sweasel.com/archives/1087
My recently ex-best fair weather friend and ex NRA member that adores Obama told me that he won't worry about a ban, 'cause he just shoots an O/U shotgun for skeet; but I had better worry, since I have semi-autos.
"Who needs 'em?" says he.
Well, I for one am not" reaching out" to the other side.
He can drive his own self to the skeet range from now on.
I ain't shooting with him anymore, neither.:mad:

tankerman
12-28-2008, 5:30 PM
Your post describes several of our EBR owning, Obama loving members, not O/U shotgun owners. AR-15 ownwers that don't care about a ban, because they love Obama and his celebrity more.
Nicki's point is right on!
Look at The American Hunters and Shooters Association. Look at the founder.
http://sweasel.com/archives/1087
My recently ex-best fair weather friend and ex NRA member that adores Obama told me that he won't worry about a ban, 'cause he just shoots an O/U shotgun for skeet; but I had better worry, since I have semi-autos.
"Who needs 'em?" says he.
Well, I for one am not" reaching out" to the other side.
He can drive his own self to the skeet range from now on.
I ain't shooting with him anymore, neither.:mad:

Funny that several folks seem to think AR-15/EBR gunowners are non-hunters or first time gunowners................I personally think that assumption is BS, and would bet more AR's are sold to hunters. I'm also curious whether the minions of new AR-15 rifle owners that shoot their guns once a year or less (which I suspect is the case with most of our membership) would really step-up when the time comes to defend our 2nd ammend rights.

Meplat
12-28-2008, 6:43 PM
I don"t own an AR. Most all my friends do and they are imminently suited for varmenting. I think they are a little light for deer. A few years ago, before I let my FFL go and when I was doing gunsmithing I built up an AR for a friend that was spooky accurate. That thing would shoot any kind of cheep **** ammo with one hole precision! I'm an old fart and got burned on the first M-16s that got a lot of my school buddies killed in Nam. But, forty years and a lot of tweaking later it is a very good rifle. I just can't get over my dead friends, so my gut keeps telling me the 15 is a POS. But, I support EBRs anyway.

I was raised with guns. Used for both hunting and security. I was taught in school that I had a right to keep and bare. I do not think being a hunter or target competitor makes you any less likely to support and fight for the 2A. I think it makes you more so. I think you should look to folks like Boo and Spawn who like their right to arms but do not back it up with their vote to rage on.:rolleyes:






Honestly I think the "divide and conquer" thing sort of worked in '94, but won't work again. Every hunter I know in the free states now owns an EBR, and why not? The AR is a great platform for all sorts of things, including hunting. I really think EBRs, and the AR in particular, are too mainstream (much more so than 15 years ago) to try to ban them federally. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the democrats aren't going to want to risk those newly minted blue states over another AWB.

Meplat
12-28-2008, 6:56 PM
AHSA is an anti-gun straw dog. Not many will be duped.
Nicki's point is right on!
Look at The American Hunters and Shooters Association. Look at the founder.
http://sweasel.com/archives/1087
My recently ex-best fair weather friend and ex NRA member that adores Obama told me that he won't worry about a ban, 'cause he just shoots an O/U shotgun for skeet; but I had better worry, since I have semi-autos.
"Who needs 'em?" says he.
Well, I for one am not" reaching out" to the other side.
He can drive his own self to the skeet range from now on.
I ain't shooting with him anymore, neither.:mad:

Librarian
12-28-2008, 7:18 PM
Just ran across an example of a 'divider' -
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4484
COMMENTARY: Guns, Greens and Obama
How Hunters Will Help Save the Wild

By Howard Whiteman
HOWARD WHITEMAN is Professor of Wildlife and Conservation Biology at Murray State University in Kentucky.
...
NRA Nation

For too long, hunters have been manipulated by a fear-mongering NRA that waives our 2nd amendment rights around as if they might be tossed in the liberal bonfire at a moment’s notice. The NRA has solidified their base by spreading propaganda in hook and bullet magazines that too many hunters accept without question. In doing so, they have also helped spread other conservative agendas, like the so called “wise-use” movement to open public lands to resource extraction, fighting limitations on ATV use, chipping away at protections for predators such as endangered gray wolves and grizzly bears, and the introduction of non-native species for hunting and fishing. This plays right into the hands of the dominionistic hunter’s view of the world: man the conqueror. Ironically, they often do so while exploiting Theodore Roosevelt’s image and legacy.

I was once a member of the NRA. But when the NRA was embroiled in fighting the Clinton administration over the assault weapons ban, I found their logic and tactics abhorrent. I own a small collection of guns, but see no reason why the average citizen needs an assault rifle. And lots of other hunters feel the same. Even some of my most conservative Republican friends are sick and tired of the NRA’s fear mongering and constant requests for money. They don’t believe that any President will ever take the guns from ordinary citizens. The idea that regulating automatic weapons will lead to a mass collection of guns is a slippery slope with lots of traction.
...
Unfortunately, such folks are out there, even claiming a lot of support while getting the technicalities wrong.

SJgunguy24
12-28-2008, 7:29 PM
I was on my way to work one morning(Caltrain) looking at a mailer that I got from S.O.G. One of the regulars looks over at the ad "Jesus what do you need that for" (about the AK's)

I told im "pigs, when i'm hunting pigs I want a quick follow up shot" He started to comment about the waste of meat because "30 rounds is a little overkill"

We had a nice debate for about 20 min. I think in the end he started to understand about the restriction of rights. What do you need a car that does 200mph(this guy has a Z06 vette) Why do you own a carbon fiber bike?
It's your choice and right to buy whatever you like.

I asked him if I could go to his job and write programs (computer stuff I guess) He told me i'm not qualified to. I asked would you be able to identify an AW if you saw one. He told me "No, i'm not a gun guy" I told him thats exactly what is wrong with the gun laws in California. People like him (non-gunnys) are writing gun laws.

Just before I got off at my stop he looks at me and says "Thats insane, people with zero knowledge writing laws about something they have no experiance with" I said "Yes Jim that is insane."

Ruiner
12-28-2008, 8:30 PM
Just to show you guys the the level of ignorance of other so called gun owners. This is a response from another "gun owner" to a picture posted containing 2 ARs, 1 Semi Auto shotgun, 1 Pistol, a few milsurps and 2 .17 HMR rifles w/ evil black synthetic stocks: :eek:


" Honestly, and not trying to offend anyone, this kind of gun ownership causes great alarm for me. I have been around guns since I was a very young child, I shot a gun for the first time when I was like five years old. I personally own five or six guns. My family including myself, my father and my grandfather have upwards of one hundred firearms. The distinction, however, is that virtually every one of them, save a couple of my grandfather's pistols, is for hunting/collecting purposes. The guns in this picture serve one purpose and that is to kill people. There is only one gun that I see in that picture that would be worth a **** for hunting (the lowermost rifle, remington 700 I believe).

by the way, the guns that my grandfather owns that are not for hunting, I also don't particularly approve of, I don't see any purpose for a gun whose only utility is to kill another human. In his case atleast they are beautiful firearms and have some value as collectors items, colt goldcup 1911, etc.

the guns that I personally own would be piss poor in a gun fight, and I'm proud of that, I have a remington 1100 20ga shotgun, my baby is a 20ga browning side by side shotgun, and then I have a 1907 300 savage lever action rifle, and a 300 weatherby magnum bolt action I also have a number of 22. pinking rifles that don't really warrant mentioning. everyone of those guns is for sport and absolutely worthless for killing people.

Gun owners like the one whose guns are in this picture are making it difficult on people like me who just want to be allowed to hunt and shoot sportingly (clays mostly) in a safe environment.


With all this being said, understand that this is my opinion and a particularly biased one. I completely respect you and i'm certainly making no judgments upon you or your friend."

PS. I ask that you guys refrain from spamming that message board as I've chewed him out (in a calm, respectful manner) enough.

nicki
12-29-2008, 12:30 AM
For those of you who are sportsmen and hunters who are doing the right thing and aren't appeasers, I apologize if you are offended by my concerns.

While I have never had to opportunity to go hunting, I support the right to hunt and will oppose laws aimed at harassing and violating the rights of hunters.

Hunting is a major public benefit, it was Teddy Roosevelt and other American hunters that started wildlife conservation, not PETA.

I can see the divide and conquer coming in the works, equating the 2nd amendment with "Sporting Weapons" is how I see Obama banning our EBR's.

Of course Obama will support our right to have "Sporting Arms" and while we have a right to keep and bear sporting arms, he will claim that we don't have a right to have weapons of war and he will say that he doesn't want to take away our duck guns, all he wants to do is get "weapons of war" of the streets.

Nicki

nobs11
12-29-2008, 7:56 AM
I can see the divide and conquer coming in the works, equating the 2nd amendment with "Sporting Weapons" is how I see Obama banning our EBR's.


It is not Obama doing the divide and conquer. It is you who is doing it. Pretty much every thread that you start is to rile up people. You have openly claimed that in some threads. You are a troll and I don't know if *your* intention is to divide the gun community. If you truly want to help, get in touch with the Calguns foundation, instead of posting asinine generalizations here.

You talk about hypotheticals without actually doing anything. You make broad claims about people ("those hunters," "those pro-marijuana people," "those anti-gay rednecks," "those liberals") just like anti-gunners. Your comments are naive at best, destructive at worst. Just my 2c.

Bruce
12-29-2008, 9:10 AM
The "Sporting Purposes" BS has been around since the 1960's. We have the big gun companies ( Remington, Winchester et al) to thank for that catch phrase. They were getting hurt by all the surplus bolt actions being imported and "sporterized" out in the garage by DIY-ers. When the 1968 Gun Control Act came along, the big guys made sure that guns imported were for "Sporting Purposes" only. Mil-surp Mauser 98's, '03 Springfields, SMLE's, Mannlicher-Carcano's etc; were deemed weapons of war and therefore could not be imported.
As I understand it, the Second covers weapons suitable for one's defense whether it be from a robber, and invader, or a tyrannical government. It doesn't cover my "right" to hunt.

CHS
12-29-2008, 9:35 AM
Just ran across an example of a 'divider' -
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4484
Unfortunately, such folks are out there, even claiming a lot of support while getting the technicalities wrong.

Exactly. Visit Triple-B Clays down here in SoCal some time and you'll meet a few dozen "dividers" in one day. Plenty of people there that have $20K in their gun collection, which consists of 3 shotguns. These guys know that Obama and Biden don't give a damn about bolt-action rifles and O/U shotguns, and know/believe that they will always have THEIR guns. They don't see it as a rights issue because they just don't give a damn. They're selfish A-Holes in my opinion.

Nicki is right. There are MANY "hunters and sportsman" that are almost anti-gun. These guys want a 2A right to keep a bolt-action rifle, or a shotgun with a 24" or longer barrel. These guys don't like AR's. Many times they don't even like handguns.

Librarian
12-29-2008, 10:41 AM
nobs11 has a point, sort of, and nicki does too.

It is the case that some gun owners are not supportive of the broad range of gun ownership; that lack of support, in my opinion, weakens the overall effort to protect a right.

It isn't helpful just to say 'hey, look - a problem!', though pointing it out is the first step to addressing it.

So, what do we do about it?

Unfortunately, this question cycles around about once a year, and I know I have never come up with an approach.

truthseeker
12-29-2008, 10:52 AM
I just wanted to add that another way "they" are trying to chip away at gun owners rights is the way that people view how children play with toy guns.

I let my children play with toy guns, but only when myself or my wife are supervising them. The toy guns do not fire anything, they merely make a click when you pull the trigger.

I only allow them to play with them when the wife and I are watching them, because we are teaching them proper gun safety at ALL times when they are playing with them (no pointing at the dog/brother/anything other than a target).

When my wifes friends come over they are like "wow, you let your kids play with fake guns!".

My wife tells them "yes, it teaches them early on that safe handling of guns at ALL times is imperative to owning/using guns when they are older".

They understand, because all of her friends know that I am an avid hunter and that I was in the military, but they are still leary of letting their kids have any to play with.

If not for my uncle, my parents separated when I was 2 years old, then I never would have had the opportunity to experience what hunting/shooting is all about.

I think part of the stigma of how people view firearms in general comes from what they hear about or read about in the news.

That is why I always try to take the husbands of my wifes friends to the range so they can experience the fun that is involved with target shooting AND hunting.

At the very least it allows them to experience that guns are not evil and cannot fire without someone pulling the trigger.

However most of the time the experience ends with the husbands asking "so what sidearm/rifle do you recommend if I was going to buy one".

I wish ALL gun owners would come to the realization that we need to stand together in order to prevent any and all future regulations that come our way and to support the efforts of people on the forefront that are fighting for the abolishment of bad gun regulations.

7x57
12-29-2008, 11:26 AM
This is a serious issue, but it goes both ways. Actually, it goes several ways, and you have to have a big picture. I've been some of those guys :-). Plenty of people need chewing out for being patsies for the enemy, and it's not at all clear that hunters are the biggest group. But in any case hunters need to be "on board" with every other shooter, no doubt about it. I have had some success with hunters, though, so let's talk about that first. I have worked out something of a strategy that has been working for me, so if you care enough about talking to naive hunters that don't want to support their shooting brethren, maybe you'll find something useful in the following. Choose whatever you will out of this little mental core-dump. (Oops, it's too big. Well, here's the first part, I can post the second if anyone cares.)

The part of the big picture that is relevant is that this is just a symptom of a culture war that we cannot avoid, and divide and conqueror is a fundamental tactic. It's inherent in a culture war: once the king is beheaded, the foolish "progressives" among the middle and upper classes that supported the revolution tend not to see that they have become expendable. In fact, it is an inherent feature of all multiplayer games with limited resources. Since hunting is one of the most traditional activities we have left in America, and hunters tend in my experience to be politically conservative (more so than EBR people, say), I do not hesitate to point out that this is the larger context.

That means that if you can't work with people you don't like, you will lose to the people you don't like even less. As I like to say, you have to vote for the crazy people so they will vote for you. It's a useful point to make with hunters, for example. I say it that way not because I think, say, the EBR people or the .50-cal people are crazy, but some hunters will always think so. I don't want to get into an argument with them about that too much, because if I do it concedes the logic behind propositions like the following:

* If the EBR guys are crazy, then it would be OK to ban their guns.

Never concede to that logic, because it means you've already lost the larger culture war. You've conceded that gun bans are legal and simply a matter of public expediency. Do you *really* want to fight on that ground, when the news media defines what the public thinks is a good idea? Instead, you turn it to your advantage: the EBR guys take the heat off of hunters, because some people think they're crazy. I'm plenty willing to explain to them why the EBR people (say) aren't crazy anyway, but only if they care and only in a context where I've made it clear that they're foolish if they won't support the EBR people whether they're crazy or not.

BTW, I'm picking on EBR people just for sake of argument, but of course it applies to anyone on "our" side). Often, the point is better made by referring to, say, the self-defense handgun crowd (it doesn't matter that all these overlap, BTW, because all specific examples are about the general point). I play that by ear.

So instead I start with some facts that hunters don't like to admit, but usually already know deep down:

(1) there is a culture out there (really an anti-culture, but never mind that) which is irrevocably opposed to hunting, in fact to all traditional culture. They will *never* cease wishing to end all hunting, just as they will never cease wishing to end, say, ranching or pet ownership per se (many are personally OK with pet "guardianship," but of course this just plays perfectly into the hands of those who see it simply as a step to eliminating pets entirely), or gun ownership. It's not hard to remind hunters that they have real enemies such as PETA (this is a good time to make a side point that HSUS is much more dangerous than PETA, because they often don't know it).

(2) there are not enough hunters to make a lobby that will protect their sport, and the numbers are declining. Sportsmen (hunting is a bigger item on the agenda, but never forget that *fishing* will be outlawed after the hunters are well and truly eliminated). Hunters *must* have allies, or there will be no more hunting. Here in California, at least, this has been an easy point to make as well. This is a good time to point out that they have a responsibility to bring people into hunting, especially kids, just as I would make a similar point about shooting to non-hunting shooters. For many hunters, it is useful to point out that they have received a tradition and every great tradition carries with it the obligation to pass on what you have received. If your hunter responds to this line of argument, that is *very* good, because at some later point you may be able to point out that the EBR guys are in fact doing precisely what the American tradition that created the Second Amendment says they should do. If you take this line, however, it will help a lot of *you* feel the importance of tradition as well, and many Libertarians do not. You have to decide what arguments you can make honestly and persuasively.

Then I make the point that there is a worse problem than the number of hunters: there is an *inherent* weakness in hunters standing alone that has destroyed or is destroying the tradition nearly everywhere else in the English-speaking world. This article:

http://vaxxine.com/scon/selfdef.htm

makes the point extremely well, but briefly it is as follows. Without talking about self-defense and so on, hunters are placed in the position of arguing for sport and tradition. This is suicide, because sooner or later there will be a massacre. The public has been lied to constantly about how gun control saves lives (I trust everyone here knows it does not, but quite a few hunters are also fooled), so they will believe that gun control might have prevented the massacre. That means that hunters appear to be valuing tradition above human lives. That is an inherently losing argument. It has always lost, and it will always lose.

Just as the article does, I illustrate this with what happened in the other English-speaking countries (and if I'm talking to someone from the non-English speaking world, I may take the time to point out that these are the most relevant countries because we share the same common-law legal system that will be manipulated to ban hunting and guns in general). Basically, the dynamic is like playing Russian Roulette: each time the issue comes up in the public discourse you never "win," you either lose or just play again. The game continues until you lose--end of story. The only solution is to never play that kind of a game: you *must* offer a positive value to guns beyond tradition. Ultimately the only answer to "guns kill" is "other guns save lives."

With that point made, I tell hunters that part of the reason that they don't feel that hunting and their hunting weapons are so threatened is because other people's guns scare the bad people more. The bad people try to ban guns based on pure, irrational fear, so they go after the EBRs first, then the handguns. If it looks like they don't care about the bolt- and lever-action rifles, that is because the EBR and self-defense guys are standing in front of them, taking the greater share of the heat. This does not mean hunters are safe, but it does mean that hunters have the opportunity to use a basic principle of war:

* Wars should *always* be fought on someone else's real estate.

In this case, hunters should be glad that the very nature of things mean that they usually don't have to stand in the front rank and receive the charge. But they *must* understand that they are still in the line, and it is very, very much in their interest to support the front line while the war is still on the home turf of other shooters. If the semiautos and the .50-cals and the handguns go away, not only will the hunters be in the crosshairs, but they will be alone and weaker than ever before.

Once that point is made, I call tell them why *every* hunter needs to belong to the NRA, even if they think the NRA is too political or too wrapped up with self-defense. The NRA is the way they are because it learned all these lessons a long time ago. In fact, the NRA is the only reason hunting is still legal in most of the country, because they learned the hard way that there are *no* shooters that we can afford to abandon.

OK, I think that will fit within the post limit.

7x57

bwiese
12-29-2008, 11:56 AM
A most excellent piece of writing, 7x57.
Thanks.

dragonbait1a
12-29-2008, 12:41 PM
And its not all hunters. It's the casual gun owners who are quiet and don't see the point to gun control. they don't read Calguns or ARF.com or whatever, They aren't NRA members (or were and lapsed). The people who buy a Big 5 shotgun to protect their house, or inherited grandpas leveraction, or have a .22 pistol somewhere in the house.

These people are gun owners, but are not gun voters. They don't necessarily see the need to worry about "Assault Weapons" or "Handgun Rosters" and can see a problem with "1 gun a month/year." They don't know the rules for getting a CCW. They have theirs. They see the media bias against guns and the narrative bias against having superior weaponry (the good guys have revolvers the bad guys have machineguns). And the keep quiet about the Glock on the nightstand. They don't take the pro-gun side in discussions with friends, family or coworkers.

There are millions of gun owners like this, the trouble is reaching them, making them care. IMHO the civil rights argument for CCW and firearms ownership is the key for winning public opinion. If we can get the idea into the mainstream, these people will hopefully stand up and say "I'm a gun owner too." The more "normal" people we get standing up and defending gun ownership the less we can be marginalized by the media as nuts and racists.

These sort of battles will be fought at the interpersonal level. They will be won by changing our image from killers and survival nuts to neighbors. The weapons we need are cogent arguments about how guns can protect life, how inanimate objects do not inspire murderous rage, how appearance isn't dangerous. At the same time we need to stay away from sound bites like "guns don't kill people," and "saving us from tyranny." While true, it smacks of not caring about the victims of crime.

The way that it is people focus on the weapon and its "Availability." They think that the killers couldn't kill as many if "Assault Weapons/high capacity magazines/handguns" are banned. We need to illuminate cases where guns protected life by being in the hands of citizens.

As for those who are active in the guns community that voted for Obama, that is their choice. I didn't and it didn't matter, my vote went to Obama in the electoral college as it stands. Obama voters saw other issues as more important to them then guns. I seriously doubt anyone here didn't know the risks. Obama is elected, I don't see anything that can change that. Attacking people personally won't change it. Even IF we all had voted McCain, CA still would have gone to Obama. Prejudice based on political party/voting will tear us apart. I don't mean healthy debate, I mean name calling and hateful hyperbole.

In short the silent gun owners are a key. We need to evaluate our image, and reinforce that the right to self-defense is a inalienable right and freedom means the freedom to disagree. Voting is more complex to many then just one issue.

RGB
(The above posts explain a lot better then I did)

Meplat
12-29-2008, 1:52 PM
I'm starting to get a little annoyed at the hunter bashing here. California has ****ed up gun laws because of the people in the LA basin and the Bay Area. They are the ones who send all the left wing nut cakes to Sacramento. Look at the votes in the legislature. The reps from the rural counties vote the right way. Why do you think that is? Could it be that we have a lot of HUNTERS in rural counties? And HUNTERS support the second? And HUNTERS hunt with and support EBRs. Why do you think you can get CCWs in counties with a lot of HUNTERS ? Might it's be because HUNTERS are also self-defense advocates? If it were not for HUNTERS, those hicks and hayseeds from the Jefferson State part of this state, that you city slickers were laughing at, all the parasitic office mice and bean counters in the bay area and LA would have no guns at all left!

Can you tell I'm annoyed? You people are looking at the world through the distorted prism of your every day left coast lives (you do know that you are the laughing stock of the country, right?). Maybe it's not your fault that the bulk of the hunters you encounter are the $12,000 shotgun type, but then you need to climb out of your little urban slime pit for a while and see how the rest of the world works. For every hunter that voted for BHO I'll guarantee you there were 1,000 urban handgun and EBR owners who did the same. We have some right here.

7x57
12-29-2008, 4:05 PM
I'm starting to get a little annoyed at the hunter bashing here.


People are airing their gripes. I was a hunter before I cared about the rest of you with your EBRs and automatic pistols (even that term is a bit dated, I now see). I assume you know that *real* real pistols are single-action wheelguns in magnum cartridges. :-) (Before someone goes ballistic, I love my .45. :-)

The problem is we have a lot of dead wood, but (to quote someone moderately famous) it's easier to see the speck in the other guy's eye. If this were a hunter's forum, we'd probably see more urban commando bashing. But every single responsible gun owner who is freeloading off of other people is frustrating, and I can't see how it helps to try to see who has the most deadwood. I hate going to an indoor range and looking at all the young guys with automatics and knowing that most of them are not only not pulling their weight, but quite a few are likely to vote against their own rights as often as not. Other people have the same frustration with the hook & bullet guys who would happily sell down the river the single woman who never owned a gun in her life until she bought a little revolver because she started seeing her ex-boyfriend wherever she went and got scared (rightfully so, too) when she found fresh footprints under her window.

Keep in mind that much of the problem is simply people believing the media when they try very hard to divide and conquer on behalf of the media's ideological masters. When hunters say "nobody needs an AR," whose line are they repeating? Sarah Brady's line, heard through a thousand slanted insinuations and outright lies from the very people who are supposed to guard against official lies and misinformation.

I'd guess people need to blow off a little steam here so they can go out and be patient with the freeloaders, whatever their game is. I try to be very thick-skinned, because I'd rather be free than win arguments, and try (as hard as it is for me!) to be able to explain why the absolute bedrock reality is that we all either hang together or hang separately.

Remember: "you have to vote for the crazy people, whoever you think they are, so they'll vote for you." Hunting is more of a tradition in the ancient sense than self-defense is, in my experience (I mean hunting is passed along in a more ancient way, not that it is older than self-defense!). We need that, I think, and I think (done right) it makes safer and better shooters than only shooting at the range. But self-defense, whether it be against an individual criminal, official refusal to give some of us proper police protection (a subtler form of oppression), or (in the last resort) explicit oppression, is hard-wired into the Constitution. If we can't defend the right to possess and carry weapons for our own defense, which is explicitly protected in the Constitution, how can we possibly defend any other, not Constitutionally special, legal use of firearms? For that matter, how can we defend *any* right? We need to win on that battleground.

As long as everyone feels better and goes back to making a positive difference, my back is broad enough to take some licks if that's what we need to stay together. Or at least, that's what I tell myself when trying to *not* post something unconstructive. :-)


California has ****ed up gun laws because of the people in the LA basin and the Bay Area. They are the ones who send all the left wing nut cakes to Sacramento.


When I moved here I immediately started feeling so very, very sorry for all of rural California, ruled by Santa Monica and San Francisco through Sacramento in about the same way dear old George III ruled those ignorant rustics far away in America.


If it were not for HUNTERS, those hicks and hayseeds from the Jefferson State part of this state, that you city slickers were laughing at, all the parasitic office mice and bean counters in the bay area and LA would have no guns at all left!


Who won the Persian wars, and who was not necessary to keep Greece free: Sparta or Athens? Both and neither, I think.


For every hunter that voted for BHO I'll guarantee you there were 1,000 urban handgun and EBR owners who did the same. We have some right here.

After people blow off steam here where it is safe, among allies, what sort of behavior will convince some of them to return (or achieve for the first time) sanity in 2010? Just remember *that* is the real goal. I'd rather win than feel better.

Heck, as an expression of solidarity I even bought a couple of OLLs. Yeah, that's why I bought them, solidarity. I sacrificed for all of you.... :-)

7x57

Meplat
12-29-2008, 5:37 PM
Thank you. You are of course correct.

But, also, I urge our cosmopolitan contributors to consider that the "hook & bullet" crowd are 80-90% true believers that are on our side. That they are not is propaganda.

There are fare more fertile fields to plow in their world than mine. All of my family and friends work for the cause. Most of the folks I work with are on our side. We are working on the others. This is a very pro-2nd environment.

Sometimes you have no idea how influential your opinions can be. Once a girl I was dating said to me; "You know I respect your opinion on the gun thing, but, I just can't see that these things (EBRs) are good for anything but shooting people." I told her that they were good for target shooting varment hunting and "some people need shooting". She looked down at her lap for a while and then looked up and said; "I guess that's why I always feel safe when I'm with you." We are still friends and she still seeks my opinion on firearms issues. ;)

People are airing their gripes. I was a hunter before I cared about the rest of you with your EBRs and automatic pistols (even that term is a bit dated, I now see). I assume you know that *real* real pistols are single-action wheelguns in magnum cartridges. :-) (Before someone goes ballistic, I love my .45. :-)

The problem is we have a lot of dead wood, but (to quote someone moderately famous) it's easier to see the speck in the other guy's eye. If this were a hunter's forum, we'd probably see more urban commando bashing. But every single responsible gun owner who is freeloading off of other people is frustrating. I hate going to an indoor range and looking at all the young guys with automatics and knowing that most of them are not only not pulling their weight, but they're likely to vote against their own rights as often as not. Other people have the same frustration with the hook & bullet guys who would happily sell down the river the single woman who never owned a gun in her life until she bought a little revolver because she started seeing her ex-boyfriend wherever she went and got scared (rightfully so, too) when she found fresh footprints under her window.

Keep in mind that much of the problem is simply people believing the media when they try very hard to divide and conquer on behalf of their ideological masters. When hunters say "nobody needs an AR," whose line are they repeating? Sarah Brady's line, heard through a thousand slanted insinuations and outright lies from the very people who are supposed to guard against official lies and misinformation.

I'd guess people need to blow off a little steam here so they can go out and be patient with the freeloaders, whatever their game is. I try to be very thick-skinned, because I'd rather be free than win arguments, and try (as hard as it is for me!) to be able to explain why the absolute bedrock reality is that we all either hang together or hang separately.

Remember: "you have to vote for the crazy people, whoever you think they are, so they'll vote for you." Hunting is more of a tradition in the ancient sense than self-defense is, in my experience. We need that, I think, and I think (done right) it makes safer and better shooters than only shooting at the range. But self-defense, whether it be against an individual criminal, official refusal to give some of us proper police protection (a subtler form of oppression), or (in the last resort) explicit oppression, is hard-wired into the Constitution. If we can't defend the right to possess and carry weapons for our own defense, which is explicitly protected in the Constitution, how can we possibly defend any other, not Constitutionally special, legal use of firearms? For that matter, how can we defend *any* right? We need to win on that battleground.

As long as everyone feels better and goes back to making a positive difference, my back is broad enough to take some licks if that's what we need to stay together. Or at least, that's what I tell myself when trying to *not* post something unconstructive. :-)



When I moved here I immediately started feeling so very, very sorry for all of rural California, ruled by Santa Monica and San Francisco through Sacramento in about the same way dear old George III ruled those ignorant rustics far away in America.



Who won the Persian wars, and who was not necessary to keep Greece free: Sparta or Athens? Both and neither, I think.



After people blow off steam here where it is safe, among allies, what sort of behavior will convince some of them to return (or achieve for the first time) sanity in 2010? Just remember *that* is the real goal. I'd rather win than feel better.

Heck, as an expression of solidarity I even bought some EBR lowers. Yeah, that's why I bought the, solidarity. :-)

7x57

7x57
12-29-2008, 6:34 PM
There are millions of gun owners like this, the trouble is reaching them, making them care.


I agree with that. Well, there is also trouble in smiling politely and not throttling the more foolish ones. :-)


The more "normal" people we get standing up and defending gun ownership the less we can be marginalized by the media as nuts and racists.


I agree with this. I have been saying for some time that we should be more disruptive, not in the lefty shout-and-placard way, but in terms of not following the narrative. The Left's ideology is all about story. They may rarely be Marxists, but they have a narrative view of history whose essentials they received through Marx. As in all good stories, there is a good side and an evil side, and while good always wins "in the end" (when the synthesis replaces the thesis) proper casting for the evil side is as important as it was in Othello--or Star Wars.

In that narrative, the minions of evil are cast as Southern white rednecks, or rich white industrialists, and similar whipping boys. Now, unfortunately for us, and awful lot of the gun culture was preserved by, say, Southern rednecks (who can easily be more civilized than urban liberals, but I digress). We should not allow the gun prohibitionists the gift of doing their casting for them. What I mean by disruptive is to play against stereotype. If I could either have CCW for myself or a young black man in the ghetto with a clean record, both strategy and ethics suggests that he needs it more. But it isn't just that his odds are worse than mine--it is also that it disrupts the enemy's narrative. Just for a minute, rationality may seem more attractive than their story, or at least it may to their audience.

Plus, the media loves money more than they love ideology, and spectacle sells. They can sometimes be persuaded to air the enemy if it promises good ratings.


As for those who are active in the guns community that voted for Obama, that is their choice. I didn't and it didn't matter, my vote went to Obama in the electoral college as it stands.


That's why I did most of my volunteer work in Nevada. :-) Not enough, apparently, but I was happy to fight where it had a chance of making a difference.


Obama voters saw other issues as more important to them then guns. I seriously doubt anyone here didn't know the risks.


I wish I shared your optimism about the judgment of voters attracted to a campaign of personality. But maybe that's why my job may not be to talk to them. :-)

7x57

JDay
12-29-2008, 6:44 PM
I don't see the words "hunting" or "sporting" anywhere in the second amendment, I'm sure most hunters and sport shooters don't see them in there either.

SkatinJJ
12-29-2008, 9:08 PM
I'm going to take the OP's message to the hilt. This isn't about just hunters and the EBR activists. This is about waking up all Americans to the Bill of Rights and ALL for which it stands.

Most people I knew in College were offended by human rights abuses and like me, joined Amnesty International. Those same people now watch and are enthused by Jack Bauer and other human rights abuses in the media.

They are shocked when I call them on these ideas in media and in reality. They have become inured to their need for the Bill of Rights. They have begun the process to willingly give up their rights, one by one, part by part in the name of the greater good (in the form of the state).

Many Americans are becoming French, or just European as it means the same sort of prone groveling to egalitarianism. Many feel that they have earned too much and NEED to give things up, like their constitutional rights to make things more equal in the world.

A French friend of mine said that in France, it was not something to be proud of to have earned a great deal of money. Those who earn something are ashamed of it. I asked him how they felt about having earned their liberty in World War II. He said that it was a low moment in their history to have lost their freedom in that way. I asked about earning it back through the resistance. He said that it was but a few people who did that, the rest were quiet.

I'm not here to bash the French. Let's not repeat the process and lose our rights by being passive. We need to become active and remind ALL Americans that the Bill of Rights is a package, a one-time-deal, that is a guarantee of liberty in this land and a shining beacon of hope throughout the world.

The whole Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, has to be upheld, argued for and taught as something maintained, not something inherited and possibly sacrificed for conveniences.

tankerman
12-29-2008, 9:48 PM
(2) there are not enough hunters to make a lobby that will protect their sport.This is pure BS.

Uninformed, FUD.

You sound very Continental.

lioneaglegriffin
12-29-2008, 11:16 PM
whats all this then?

Don't you guys know about this.

using a an AR-15 with woodland camo to hunt varmint seems like a good enough bridge to me between these two sides.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/picture-2-5.png

and for those that like larger game.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/spr_ma9104.jpg

being that the two type of rifles that are still used in the armed forces are used to hunt means to me that the the line is isn't really all that clear cut.

7x57
12-30-2008, 8:15 AM
This is pure BS.

Uninformed, FUD.


No, you just don't like me calling BS on the Obama/AHSA FUD. It threatens the ongoing process of divide-and-conquer. I seem to have struck a sore spot; was the AHSA trojan horse not successful enough for you after all?

I'd ask you to back it up, but you haven't said anything that makes me care enough.


You sound very Continental.

That's worse than calling a man a liar. Europe is no longer civilized.

You sound pretty much like every other gun-banner who realized that you can't beat all of us at once. Do you perchance support "reasonable gun control?" Do you think that rights that apply one place "don't work everywhere?"

7x57

bubbagump
12-30-2008, 9:42 AM
Exactly. Visit Triple-B Clays down here in SoCal some time and you'll meet a few dozen "dividers" in one day. Plenty of people there that have $20K in their gun collection, which consists of 3 shotguns. These guys know that Obama and Biden don't give a damn about bolt-action rifles and O/U shotguns, and know/believe that they will always have THEIR guns. They don't see it as a rights issue because they just don't give a damn. They're selfish A-Holes in my opinion.

Nicki is right. There are MANY "hunters and sportsman" that are almost anti-gun. These guys want a 2A right to keep a bolt-action rifle, or a shotgun with a 24" or longer barrel. These guys don't like AR's. Many times they don't even like handguns.

I know a supervisor at Triple B's who has that mentality. I got into it with him one day. He is a hunter. I am a hunter.

It happens.

tankerman
12-30-2008, 8:19 PM
Now you're going call me some sort of a pro-gun ban person? What a tool. It's time for you to check yourself, dude.


You typed up a heaping pile of BS that sounded good to you...................and when I disagreed, you pitched a tempertantrum (hissy fit, what ever):sarcasm::willy_nilly: Well get this, I still say you are wrong and none of your absurd rants are going to change that. Fact is in most states other than this state the hunting lobby is strong, sorry that fact upsets you. Perhaps if you got out more you would understand this too.

I own ALL types of firearms, I'm not firearms predjudiced, and many members here can attest to that fact. You are wedge in this tabloid issue. Your obviously crave hype, so this is your kind of garbage.

AHSA BS may be something you just picked up on (new to you), but for most of us long time gun owners with brains of our own we have known about garbage front groups like these for well over a decade. Welcome aboard noob, nice to have you.

Piece of advice; You should refrain from hurling personal insults at people you don't know, unless you're sure that's the same tone you'd take with me face to face.:thumbsup:
No, you just don't like me calling BS on the Obama/AHSA FUD. It threatens the ongoing process of divide-and-conquer. I seem to have struck a sore spot; was the AHSA trojan horse not successful enough for you after all?

I'd ask you to back it up, but you haven't said anything that makes me care enough.



That's worse than calling a man a liar. Europe is no longer civilized.

You sound pretty much like every other gun-banner who realized that you can't beat all of us at once. Do you perchance support "reasonable gun control?" Do you think that rights that apply one place "don't work everywhere?"

7x57

7x57
12-31-2008, 8:32 AM
Now you're going call me some sort of a pro-gun ban person?
Fact is in most states other than this state the hunting lobby is strong,


"Strong" isn't the issue. The issue is "strong enough." What you disagreed with is the idea that it isn't strong enough to preserve hunting by itself. I'm glad to hear that you personally are the expert and know better than, as one example, the NRA about how well that will work in the long term.

I am not interested in following the same losing strategy that Britain, Australia, and Canada pursued, with or without your help. There is plenty of data on how it worked, some of it in the link I posted. If you want to claim differently then the burden is on you to provide concrete evidence. If you can't do that, I won't take you seriously.


Piece of advice; You should refrain from hurling personal insults at people you don't know, unless you're sure that's the same tone you'd take with me face to face.:thumbsup:

Anyone who suggests that hunters do not need other shooters politically needs to have BS called on it, for everyone's sake. Same for any other group of shooters, for that matter. There are situations where the context makes it inappropriate, but if the situation is appropriate, I have done it, do do it, and will do it again.

But having done so, I'm not obliged to continue to argue with someone who presents no evidence or any kind of rational argument. Make something besides unsupported assertion, or I won't give you more opportunities to shout "because I say so, that's why."

7x57

tankerman
12-31-2008, 2:50 PM
Pretend Patriot - Keep spewing your garbage and lies. Your HUGE ego shows, by you telling me what I disagree with in your own detail is proof of your over inflated opinion of yourself...............I am a long time NRA member and have nothing against target shooters, I engage in it myself. I don't like to hear either side talk sh-t on each other, which is exactly the opposite of your position. Keep making your rediculous assertions and spread your FUD-----I bet you've done this same song and dance on other boards you used to be a memeber on as well.


A little critical thinking would go a long away; try it sometime.



"Strong" isn't the issue. The issue is "strong enough." What you disagreed with is the idea that it isn't strong enough to preserve hunting by itself. I'm glad to hear that you personally are the expert and know better than, as one example, the NRA about how well that will work in the long term.

I am not interested in following the same losing strategy that Britain, Australia, and Canada pursued, with or without your help. There is plenty of data on how it worked, some of it in the link I posted. If you want to claim differently then the burden is on you to provide concrete evidence. If you can't do that, I won't take you seriously.



Anyone who suggests that hunters do not need other shooters politically needs to have BS called on it, for everyone's sake. Same for any other group of shooters, for that matter. There are situations where the context makes it inappropriate, but if the situation is appropriate, I have done it, do do it, and will do it again.

But having done so, I'm not obliged to continue to argue with someone who presents no evidence or any kind of rational argument. Make something besides unsupported assertion, or I won't give you more opportunities to shout "because I say so, that's why."

7x57